So don’t use Facebook. Honestly, that’s probably the better solution anyway.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook: Users Who Want to Sideload Apps Can Use Android, While the iPhone Experience Maximizes 'Security and Privacy'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you have any examples of these apps? Because I’m struggling to think of a single app that I use that could be pulled from the App Store and leave me unable to find an alternative. Im not trying to be snarky or anything, I just genuinely can’t think of any.
Competition in the App Store is fierce, I don’t think there are many devs out there that could risk making their app harder for average or below average users to access.
The only groups I think that would be able to take advantage of this are people who make very specialized apps for small but passionate audiences, or apps that would otherwise not be allowed on the App Store in the first place (game streaming, etc).
Maybe I’m being overly-optimistic but I just don’t see this being an issue that affects the average user.
Exactly. Vote with your dollars if you don’t like Toyota. It’s the only weapon a consumer has when a company puts out a product they don’t like.
I don’t understand this line of thinking where it’s okay by law to force companies to change how they run. Note I’m not talking about illegal activity here. “Users who want CUDA need to buy NVIDIA”. All products have these kinds of advantages over each other. I don’t think it’s any more right to FORCE Apple to offer side loading than to force NVIDIA to open source CUDA so AMD cards can use it.
I don't belive apple should be forced to design their product to incorporate various features, apple should want to design to their customers desires.
This is the most illogical comment ever. If Microsoft or anyone desired that, they would be doing it now on android.
You do realize it Android owns 80% of the market?
Apple is not the dominant player in mobile. We would already be seeing this. And we’re not! The alternative would be for Apple to start charging predatory commissions on developers work and then it would be a moot point anyway.
There are all sorts of laws that tell companies how they have to operate and that will have an impact on their products, including their interpretation through relevant regulatory bodies. The market is not a free for all.
Why shouldn't it be okay? If there is a sufficient public interest and concern it would be entirely negligent not to.
I think you are right on this one. There will be negotiations, big companies will try their best to avoid the worst situation.
There is one app I know that has that kind of power though, and it is WeChat. (Sorry for another Chinese example! I’ve been there.) WeChat is irrelevant outside China, but in China it means basically everything, without any meaningful competition. So maybe they could pull the trigger, who knows.
I don’t, personally. But on the other hand you must know what a ridiculous solution your proposal is. Many millions upon millions of Facebook users have iPhones. You and others in this thread are only considering your own very, very small use cases. You wanting to tinker is not a viable alternative to a less secure system.
So what you're saying is that "if you don't like it go elsewhere or don't use it" is a "ridiculous solution."
Looking at the original article, someone should tell Apple!
Couldn't have said it better. Burgman's arguments hold exactly zero water. Don't sideload if YOU are so friggin' afraid of the big wide world out there.
Hide in your little safe corner. Don't lock everyone else in their house just because you're the one who's afraid.
@burgman
Very interesting. It reminds me of the Pareto 80/20 rule.
A few apps can serve a wide variety of users perfectly fine. But for every individual user, there might be one or two apps that they want so bad. Maybe it’s an app for some enterprise verification purposes. Maybe it’s a popular game. Maybe it’s just a poorly written app, randomly be adopted by schools or employers. So while “mainstream” apps have major impact on the ecosystem, other factors do exist.
Edit: So yeah, I do think more choice is good. I want Apple to find a way to satisfy both openness and privacy.
Last edited:
1) The gates are open on Android, yet those social network apps do not demand ridiculous permissions in order to work, and you can still use the apps after denying the apps' permission requests.
2) You will always have the option to reject a social network app. You can use Safari to access the social network, or choose a different social network.
3) Markets adapt. If all of the popular social networks suddenly demanded ridiculous permissions, you can rest assured that alternative social networks would quickly grow in popularity.
Very good question. And this has been continually asked through this entire thread, and no one has tried to explain that. They merely parrot what apple says.
Theres a certain number of people in this world who scare really easily, and never flinch or question when freedom is taken away in the name of 'security'.
There are also a certain number who think everything is about “freedom” when it just isn’t. They scare easily too.
What on earth are you on about? They already do ask ridiculous permission, the markets didnt adapt other than to spur every other app into asking ridiculous permissions.
Have you not read anything over the past few years? It’s hardly a secret.
This is why Apple deny them these rights in the first place, and if side loading is allowed, the first place many such apps will go to reinstate their ‘rights’ to all your data.
It's not less secure and it's not about wanting to tinker, it's about wanting apps that aren't available in the app store. An alternative option would be Apple letting things like Xbox Live into the app store, but they don't want to give up that control either.
Ultimately, this isn't something I'm going to lose any sleep over. I bought my iPhone with full knowledge of its limitation and Apple's sometimes unreasonable restrictions. That doesn't stop me from wanting to see improvements though.
Remember back when die-hard iPhone users would say that the average user shouldn't need to multitask or have widgets? I put the same stock in those arguments then as I do the cries of "it's bad for security but i can't tell how" today. I imagine Apple's tight grip will eventually lead to regulation that forces much worse implementations of things like sideloading and alternative payment methods, but I just wish Apple would come to their senses and try to implement these features well before it comes to that.
There's one possible issue, here: if iOS were to become more like macOS (allowing installing and execution of apps from anywhere), then who says these apps have to follow app store guidelines, such as utilizing sandboxes?
From Apple's guidelines for making applications that can be distributed on the mac App Store:
As it has been pointed out, iOS was originally forked from macOS, and has the same underlying POSIX subsystem -- the forced opening up of iOS to allow unhindered sideloading might open up the ability to run apps that don't adhere to Apple's sandbox containers, as is the case on macOS.
This is all about control of culture and profit. If you want to claim only official channel then you must accept all legal content, including that which competes with Apple. You can either have a regulated monopoly or an open system but distribute only certain goods / services.
Some of us have clearly lain out how it is bad for security. Choosing to ignore those posts does not mean they are not there. Comparing this to users blindly following Apple not having some feature is disingenuous at best.
The irony --- "So don't use iPhone. Honestly, that's probably the better solution anyway."
Perhaps what we're seeing in this thread is that there are users who desire opposing things (i.e., some want iOS to be more like Android, some want iOS to maintain its' status quo security settings). Perhaps Apple has a lot more data on the subject than any of us, and is doubling down hard on security due to their understanding of their users' desires? Perhaps.
I think you alone have made a cohesive argument, although I don't agree with your point of view. The overwhelming majority of people just say "because security" and leave it at that.
But that's exactly what it is.
So it's only a valid point when you say it?